 Are we headed for a summer of freedom? No masks. And millions of people having to isolate as a result of COVID-19. It seems so. After a year when the government has done relatively well when it comes to the pandemic, particularly when measured to a disastrous 2020, it seems that Tories once again are putting an abstract idea of freedom above public health and even, dare I say, the economy. We'll need to discuss that on Tiskey Sour this evening is Dahlia Gabrielle. Dahlia, how are you doing? I'm good. I'm particularly excited today as I believe some handsome young gentlemen will be playing some football later today I've heard. I'm trying to pretend like I know what I'm talking about. This is in the script just for people watching. Thank you for joining us on a wonderful evening. We are going to get through this show. We've got some brilliant stories. I promise you personally we will be finished by 750. You'll even be able to get the kettle on or crack open a beer before the football starts. We'll also be talking about a particular individual who has recently been readmitted into the Labour Party after a suspension and some really interesting data from a new report showing that younger generations are increasingly disenchanted with capitalism. Don't forget to hit subscribe if you're new and let us know your thoughts. How do you feel about July the 19th? Freedom Day. How do you feel about the reopening? Are you worried? Let us know not just in the chats but also on Twitter under the hashtag Tiskey Sour. First story, 2 million people could contract COVID-19 this summer with a remarkable 10 million people potentially facing isolation. Those aren't just the worst case prognostications coming from the likes of the Financial Times, the Guardian and the Daily Mail but a frank admission from Sajid Javed, the Secretary of State for Health. Speaking yesterday, Mr Javed talked about how new cases of COVID-19 could spiral to 100,000 a day or more this summer and admitted that it could be 50,000 a day as soon as the 19th of July. Perhaps most concerning of all is that, and I quote, the government has not put numbers on hospitalizations. So it isn't surprising that given millions of people could not only contract this thing but many more could come into contact with cases and therefore would have to be isolated, the government is also saying from the middle of August, I believe it's the 16th of August, anybody who's been double vaccinated or who's under 18 is exempt from having to isolate if they've come into contact with somebody. So they're changing the rules fundamentally around test and trace. It's important to say, however, that's more than a month away. Right now, of course, the rules apply to adults, you have to isolate for 10 days, even if you've had two doses after coming into contact with somebody who's had COVID-19. Of course, such an incredible story was the focus of Prime Minister's questions today, particularly Johnson's response to hospitalizations in the absence of model link by the government for it. This is what Keir Starma had to say about the matter. Mr Speaker, we know that the link between infection rates and deaths has been weakened, but it hasn't been broken. And the Prime Minister must, and he certainly should know the answer to the question that I asked him, that he won't answer it here in the House, hardly inspires confidence in his plan. Mr Speaker, let's be clear why infection rates are so high, because the Prime Minister let the Delta, or we can call it the Johnson variant, into the country. And let's be clear why the number of cases will surge so quickly, because he is taking all protections off in one go. That is reckless. The sage papers yesterday, Mr Speaker, make clear that with high infection rates, there's a greater chance of new variants emerging, greater pressure on the NHS, more people will get long COVID, and test and trace will be less effective. Knowing all that, is the Prime Minister really comfortable with a plan that means 100,000 people catching this virus every day and everything that that entails? Good questions from Keir Starma. He had a good session. This is what Boris Johnson had to say in response. Mr Speaker, I really think we need to hear from what the young general, what he actually supports. We will continue with a balanced and unreasonable approach. And I've given the reasons this country has rolled out the fastest vaccination program anywhere in Europe. The vaccines provide more than 90% protection against hospitalisation. Both of them, Mr Speaker, by the 19th of July, we will have vaccinated every adult who would have been offered one vaccination. Everybody over 40, Mr Speaker, will have been offered two vaccinations. That is an extraordinary achievement. That's allowing us to go ahead. What do you think, Dalio? This is an interesting story, for me, on a number of levels, because the Tories have really got their act together when it comes to COVID in 2021. I don't think many people who disagree with their politics like to say that, but clearly the vaccine rollout has been pretty successful. Obviously, cases have gone down. Britain has been something of a leader. Let's say that's because of the NHS, not because of the government. But this seems like a return to the shenanigans we saw last year. What are your thoughts? It makes sense why we saw that kind of what seemed like an out of nowhere targeting and removal of Matt Hancock for having an affair when there were multiple points at which he really should have been briefed against and should have been sacked. For example, when he failed to ensure that people coming out of hospital weren't going straight into care homes without being tested. But it seems like this was really part of a strategy to implement this kind of gung-ho, business interest first, public health second approach to charge regardless of the science and regardless of how clearly this is a crisis for public health. Because Matt Hancock, he was deeply incompetent and his dithering cost thousands and thousands of lives. But he could eventually be persuaded by scientists to do what was necessary, albeit far too late. Whereas Javid seems to be much more ideologically committed to ending all restrictions, even the ones that are very low effort, very low inconvenience with very high health returns and that would actually prevent us from entering into a really restrictive lockdown, like mask wearing on public transport or indoor public spaces. But we should also be really worried about this, because this seems like the exact kind of scenario from what I've read as being an absolute breeding ground for vaccine resistant variants to emerge. According to the WHO, when a virus is widely circulating in the population and causing lots and lots of infections, the chances of that virus mutating massively increases. And let's not forget, of course, the vaccines do reduce transmission, but they don't completely end transmission. And we are seeing that the case rate is really growing really exponentially. But the more that the virus can spread, the more opportunities it has to replicate itself and therefore to undergo those kind of changes. And we're still not at a stage where we really understand how effective the vaccines are against variants and how we can make vaccines more resistant and more resilient to variants, whether that is sort of having booster shots or having other strains included in the vaccine. So until then, until we figure that out, it's really important that we still try and keep the number of infections low, which we can do by having these really simple measures like mask wearing, like track and trace, like giving people the resources to self-isolate if they need to. And until then, we really should keep those infections as low as possible so that we avoid having to go back into those really restrictive lockdowns. And that's really the great irony of it all, because it's the so-called anti-lockdown Sajjah Javed that is implementing policies that means that we will almost certainly have to be back into a really restrictive lockdown at some point over the next several months. So is that your conclusion? You think that we will definitely go into a lockdown then as a result of this? Because I suppose that... Go on, sorry. I think that it makes it much more likely, because of course, whilst we have a situation now where hospitalizations and deaths are low, and that's obviously really good, but I think that the threat of increasing the likelihood of a variant that is particularly resistant to vaccines is really worrying. And especially when the cases are becoming so high, we will start to, I think, see that relationship between hospitalizations and infections. It might have been weakened, but it's not completely broken. But also, the issue is that, and I say this every time we talk about this, hospitalizations and deaths are, of course, really important data. But it's not the only data that we should be paying attention to. We should also be paying attention to the data around long COVID. We know that having a double dose of the vaccine reduces your chances of getting long COVID by just 30%. It's really not that much, and that is still a long-term, debilitating effect. I have many friends who are still suffering from the symptoms of long COVID up to nine months after being infected. And so the fact that we have a government that's really not paying attention to that fine detail worries me that we're going to end up in a really bad situation, again, which none of us want to be in. No one likes lockdowns. They're terrible for so many reasons. Yeah. Also, as well, like, look, China, everybody still wears masks. Just do what China does. It's not that complicated. You would have thought after a year we would have learned our lesson, right? Just do what the East Asians do. And yet, Sajid Javed still thinks he knows best. You've predicted a lockdown, but I'll ask you one more question before we move on to the next story. I mean, Boris Johnson would reply, and this is something he said actually today in MPMQs, that actually, substantively, there's no real difference between the Tory position on this and Labour's. Labour agree on schools. They agree on nightclubs and bars and pubs and restaurants. The only thing they disagree on is masks and public transport, which is okay. It's a big thing, but that's clearly not the difference between avoiding another lockdown and getting on top of this. So, do you think that there's a bit of duplicity in Labour's position here? They're not willing to actually set a course of their own, but at the same time, they want to criticise the government without offering an alternative? Yeah. I mean, I think this has been probably the only consistent, identifiable core to Kirstama's approach to his whole, not just to coronavirus, but to his whole kind of approach to leading the Labour Party, and it's to essentially endorse the kind of broad ideological framework of Tory policy, but sort of nitpick on details of execution. And this is a really classic example of that. And it is the ultimate, there is no alternative politics. We don't have any fundamental disagreements. We just think we could do this a little bit more efficiently. And that's poisonous to our political culture for two reasons. It's poisonous. Firstly, most immediately because it means that in the middle of a pandemic, when small government decisions are really a matter of life or death or long-term illness for so many people, the opposition that we rely on to hold the government to account has essentially just sort of left the game, like just left the field wide open. We've seen more accountability being demanded by a Premier League footballer than the guy who's actually elected and paid to do this. So which means that we have allowed utter incompetence and irresponsibility at the highest levels of government with little to no resistance. But it also I think is really poisonous because it seems that the entire aim of this Starmer leadership is to just lower the expectations of what it means to have change in this country, to just lower the expectations of what's possible, to depress people's political imagination. And that's such an abdication of historical responsibility because we are in a kind of crisis where so many of the issues that we talk about and so many of the issues we've been trying to change, the things that are broken about our system have come to the fore in such a visceral way. And this could have been such a moment with clear oppositional leadership. This could have been such a moment to change so much, to demand so differently in terms of how we work, how we care for each other, how we organize our society, what kinds of work we really value and what we really reward in our society. People build the streets last summer demanding systemic change, but instead we've just had this moment of just like deep conservativeness and passivity across the board including by the very opposition that is elected to show us what else is possible. And I think that Starmer's Labour is going to be judged very harshly by future generations for allowing this moment to pass without even like with a very minor level of opposition, much less the demand for systemic change in this historical moment really calls for. There's the interesting counterfactual which is what would the Tories have done in response to the pandemic if Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell weren't the top two people leading the opposition party. And I think we can kind of get an indication of that now because the Conservatives clearly embarking on something which is absurd, completely odds with what's going on elsewhere across the world. And there is absolutely no meaningful pushback from from Gistama. Labour, of course, rhetorically are opposing it, but actually substantively, there's not much for difference. We will move on to our next story. We've got Kieran Buckley with a fiver who says precisely on this, UK is now the poster boy for what not to do during a global pandemic. Absolutely right. That hasn't changed. That was the norm in 2020 and we're now regressing to the norm now that Sajid Javed is Secretary of State for Health does make you think how coordinated this was. Maybe I'm being a bit too conspiratorial with the removal of Matt Hancock, of course, reopening. One might argue advances certain interests of certain people who earn certain own certain newspapers, just just a thought. Second story. Keir Starmer has promised a zero tolerance approach to racism since becoming Labour leader. It was perhaps surprising then when we found out that Trevor Phillips had been secretly readmitted into the Labour Party after his suspension for alleged Islamophobia. According to the Guardian, Phillips was reinstated at least three weeks ago, without the matter having gone to an NEC National Executive Committee disciplinary panel, as it should have. Critics of that decision have pointed to a paper agreed by the NEC in 2019, which states, quote, except in cases of mistaken identity, only the NEC can choose to lift a suspension and issue a warning. Now, hopefully, Mr Phillips shared his suspension letter at the time, this is the last year or the year before 2019, with the charge being that he demonstrated hostility or prejudice to a race, religion or belief, something which is important to say he denies. So what's the evidence of such a claim? Well, it's fair to say that Trevor Phillips is somebody who very much sees himself at the heart of the cultural war. So let's get into specifics. In August 2017, Trevor Phillips called for the government to acknowledge that UK sex grooming gangs as a Muslim issue, rather than Asian one, saying that it was faith the United Criminals, such as those in the Rochdale child sex abuse ring. Yet, a home office report subsequently showed child sex abuse gangs were typically divided on race lines, but the majority were made up of white men under the age of 30. Perhaps more troublingly, Phillips is also on record as saying that British Muslims have, again, quote, formed a nation within the nation with its own geography, its own values, and its very own separate future. Now, you may agree with that, you may disagree with that, you may think he has the right to say that, but I think most people would agree that if you said that about other minorities in the Labour Party, you wouldn't be allowed back in, certainly not in the way that Mr Phillips was. Furthermore, it seems that many senior Labour figures publicly don't have much of a problem with what Trevor Phillips has said in the past in regards to Islamophobia. Dahlia, what's your take on this? Should Trevor Phillips still be suspended? I mean, it's hard to say because I think the real question is, does this represent the values of the Labour Party? And that is something for the Labour Party to answer, not me. But I think the message that we've been given, at least, is very clear, which is that the Labour Party is deeply ashamed, and when I say the Labour Party, I mean primarily the upper echelons of the Labour Party, is deeply ashamed of its base. It's ashamed of young people. It's ashamed of Muslims. It's ashamed of trade unions, unionists, of black people. Look at how it responded to kill the bill protests, to the Black Lives Matter movement, or moment, as Kirstama likes to call it. And I'm not sure where the Labour Party thinks they're going to get to by constantly acting so ashamed of the people that keep them, you know, that sort of essentially mean that they have the few seats in Parliament that they actually have. But, you know, Trevor Phillips is kind of a key figure in, in sort of British parliamentary politics and state politics in Britain, because he is a symptom of a very particular kind of top-down state multiculturalism in so far as that has been used as a tool to kind of break anti-racist movements and break solidarity between racialized communities. You know, Paul Gilroy wrote about this in the 1990s, which shows you how long this kind of manoeuvre has been, has been in the making where a once sort of multi-racial, self-organized anti-racist movements who, you know, populated trade unions, who worked on the streets, who worked at art institutions, etc, are sort of absorbed by the state, broken down into their little silos of communities whose interests are then positioned as entirely separate and sometimes actually oppositional to one another. So they're sort of encouraged to compete for state funding, for state resources, etc. And those communities are essentially represented by community leaders who, you know, are selected by the state, but often completely unrecognizable in their own communities and with the communities that they actually are alleged to represent. And this is why, despite being unrecognizable to so many of the communities and the people that he talks about, it seems like we hear an awful lot from Trevor Phillips. And we wonder, you know, why, why do we always hear so much of him and why there's so many people who are so willing to protect his reputation, even when he is kind of destroyed amongst the very communities that he says he is speaking to and for. But this is basically just an appalling, very old school technique employed by, you know, the ruling elite in Britain to divide and rule, to create an exceptionalised bogeyman against which you can pit all other communities. But it makes very little sense here because the exceptionalised bogeyman that you're trying to cultivate is your own base. So, you know, yeah, okay, we saw it in the Tory elections campaign, where Islamophobia was mobilised in order to cultivate support in non-Muslim ethnic minorities. But I'm just like, if you're the Labour Party, where you rely so heavily on the Muslim vote, how do you think this is going to end up? Maybe something kind of similar to how the red wall ended up? And that's not going to end nicely for you. So, it's, that's kind of how I see where Trevor Phillips intervention comes from and why he is so protected by the Labour Party, despite, you know, that seeming very counterintuitive. And also why I think ultimately, this is all going to really backfire on the Labour Party. Well, I think that's, that's, that's something one might wish for. Just response from a few Labour figures, Labour Muslim members and MPs universally condemning the news. This is from Apsana Begum MP, his silent readmission, that's Trevor Phillips, the Labour Party without even as much as an explanation or apology is an insult to my community to fellow Muslims solidarity. I stand with you on another dark day. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Labour Muslim Network told Labour List, Trevor Phillips case is one of the most high-profile recent examples of Islamophobia within the Labour Party and quietly readmitting him behind closed doors without apology or acknowledgement will only cause further anxiety and hurt among Muslims. I mean, it's also important to say that, you know, the whole point of the HRC sort of debacle for Labour was that they were meant to have this independent complaints process. The second you have a high-profile case, which is somebody who is seemingly favoured by the leadership, they've just debt jettisoned the whole thing. And when I say he's close to leadership, this is not, you know, this is not just me making things up. You know, Trevor Phillips, Peter Manlison was his, was his best man, I believe. You know, he doesn't just share the same constituency Labour Party as Keir Starmer. They're in the same branch. And actually, people in that branch, as I understand it, have been making real noises about how the suspension against Trevor Phillips should end. Now, you might think he shouldn't be suspended. But again, I think it's inarguable that the manner in which this has been handled is completely at odds with all of the recommendations from the HRC. And when you compare it, people said, oh, well, look, Jeremy Corbyn should get the whip back. Rebecca Long-Bailey shared an article on Twitter, and she was expelled from the shadow cabinet. This is somebody who's saying Muslims are a nation within a nation, and he's allowed back in the party. And I think people quite rightly say there's a double standard here. Darlia, what do you think the electoral kind of consequence of this would be? Because, you know, we had the battle in Spen by election last week, and people thought that clearly Labour is being right now subjected to real difficulties with regards to its Muslim base, because there is a big perception of Islamophobia coming from certain parts of the party. And they seem to be almost consciously trying to inflame that. Now, of course, 20% of votes in battle in Spen voted for George Galloway, but Labour held on. So presumably their bet is, going back to your previous point, they can alienate a big part of their base because they think that they're going to get some other people instead. And presumably that will be a bigger part of the public. Do you think that's a plausible bet even? Forget for a moment whether or not you agree with it. Well, I mean, what it reminds me of, and it's funny you mentioned Peter Mandelson, because I believe that it was Peter Mandelson who basically dismissed any attempt to hold on to and, you know, sort of appeal to Northern Red War voters, because he said that they have nowhere else to go. So, you know, it doesn't matter how much we sort of throw them under the bus, how much we exclude them from our policymaking, how much we exclude them from, you know, the way that our party operates, how much we kind of lump them with rubbish MPs, as you know, in a kind of game of political favours, because what are they going to do? We can rely on their vote. There's no point in engaging. But look, like I said, look where that led the party. And I think, you know, the vote in battalion spend, obviously, you know, they didn't lose the seat, but they won it by the skin of their teeth. And I think that we are starting to see this happen in the Muslim voter base too. And so the question therefore is, who's going to vote for you? A couple of converts from the Tory party? We know from the data that that's not where your actual voting constituency lies. And we know that you're not going to be able to do that on a scale large enough to actually win an election. And that's the political point. But the like, the, I want to say moral point, I guess, that whole idea of, you know, Muslims are a nation within a nation. They are, you know, this sort of nefarious, you know, cabal that are sort of like plotting to take over. Those are far right talking points. It reminds me of the like no go zone stuff that Tucker Carlson talks about. And it is especially, especially when you've just won off the skin of your teeth in battalion spend, like to kind of allow and endorse the pandering to far right conspiracy theories that really do put the Muslim community in danger is frankly shocking. And I often say that I think a big part of the ways in which Jeremy Corbyn was kind of smeared as, you know, reactionary is, you know, at one point they were trying to say he was misogynistic and then they say he's terrorist sympathizing. I think part of that was because he was seen as too uncomfortably close to the Muslim community too uncomfortably accepting of the Muslim community. And I often say that Jeremy Corbyn was the first, you know, white Protestant man to be a victim of Islamophobia because I actually do think that that was part of the ways in which hatred against, you know, this kind of very disproportionate level of hatred against Jeremy Corbyn was kind of stirred up. It was through these kinds of dog whistles. He's close to Muslims. He's misogynistic. He's this, he's this, he's bringing in, you know, scary people into the party. And, you know, the voters are going to react to it just like they did in the Red Wall. Yeah, I mean, Peter O'Born wrote a really great piece in response to a lot of this stuff from Trevor Phillips. And, you know, Trevor Phillips is citing surveys or polls which say that, oh, well, observant Muslims think X. And it's like, you could say that about observant Jews or about Catholics. You're doing it in particular repeatedly for 20 years about this one particular group. And the whole thing about a nation within a nation, it's not new, right? You know, the idea of fifth columnism and Catholics and, you know, Popory in Protestant England, you know, this is not, this is not like a new concept. The idea that there's this, you know, this enemy within. But I think I think the point about Jeremy Corbyn being the first white Protestant to be a victim of Islamophobia is a really, really good one. We're going to go to our final story before we do like the video if you're enjoying the show. I have done my best to make up for the shortfall that as Michael Walker, not being here, the lacuna, the chasm, the gaping hole in all of our lives, he'll be back on Monday. So, you know, that's the main thing. Third and final story. The Institute for Economic Affairs is, by any measure, a neoliberal think tank. Yet it's published a report which is of profound interest to socialists. It's titled Left Turn Ahead, Surveying Attitudes of Young People Towards Capitalism and Socialism. I've read it and so should you, because a lot of the data it's collected and its original data doesn't just build on these stories we've heard for five, 10 years about how young people are turning left, but actually show pretty dramatic majorities for socialist policy. Before we get into the meat of that report, it's kind of funny how it talks about Teen Vogue as kind of the load star of all of this. And some of the, some of the headlines from Teen Vogue over the year have been pretty funny. One is, Who is Karl Marx? Meet the Amity capitalist scholar. Meet Ash Sarka, the communist who called Piers Morgan an idiot. And perhaps my favorite one of all, Rosa Luxemburg. Who was the revolutionary socialist and author? Now, what the report makes clear is that Teen Vogue isn't just an echo chamber. Navarra media, it might feel like that sometimes when you're on the left. It's not just a bunch of people talking to one another in isolation from the rest of the population. In fact, reflects broader changes in public opinion, which can map onto age. It doesn't mean all young people are left-wing. It doesn't mean all older people are right-wing, but there are clear shifts in public opinion when you look at distinct generations. So some of their original findings on this is remarkable. Like I say, we've had these stories repeatedly over the years, you know, particularly when Bernie Sanders was winning primaries, record numbers of a certain age group thinks left-wing ideas are good, that famous, at least for me, bit of a political dweeb, front cover of the economists about millennial socialism. But this is, I think, a whole other level. This is a condensation of a lot of the data in this report. So 75% of young people agree with the assertion that climate change is a specifically capitalist problem. That's pretty cool. As opposed to a side effect of industrial production, that would occur in any economic system. 71% agree with the assertion that capitalism fuels racism. 73% agree that it fuels selfishness, greed, and materialism, while a socialist system would promote solidarity, compassion, and cooperation. It goes on to say 78% of young people blame capitalism, not nimbism and supply-side restrictions, for Britain's housing crisis. 78% also believe that it requires government intervention to solve it through things like rent controls and public housing. Elsewhere, 72% of young people support the nationalization or renationalization of industries, such as energy, water, and railways. The same figure, 72% also believe that private sex involvement puts the NHS at risk. Now, the report concludes, if these trends continue, then in the future, these will become the mainstream views of the population as a whole. This is a phrase I love, a sentence I love. Generation left will become population left, nor can we brush the phenomenon aside as just a social media bubble or an online echo chamber. It's definitely wrong to think of millennial socialists as weird outliers who have nothing in common with, quote, normal members of their generation. Now, discussing this report, I believe yesterday, on BBC Politics Live, was our very own Ash Sarka. Let's watch that now. Right. Well, Ash, that question is for you. Is it because young people here haven't really ever experienced what it might be like to live under a proper socialist government? Well, I think what young people have is an experience of living in a capitalist economy, which is failing them. And there's one thing which I'd like to disagree with that was said earlier, which is, well, haven't young people always been more left-wing? That's simply not the case. People always forget that Margaret Thatcher won a majority of young voters. We're talking 18 to 24-year-olds, that exact cohort, which we all like to think of as, you know, living the life of the young ones, left-wing firebrands. That wasn't the case in the 1980s. But what has happened since then, I think, is less to do with shifts of values, but actually a shift in how the economy works and the fact that that has systematically disadvantaged young people. So in some parts of London, the average house price is 20 times the average wage. And we've seen the single biggest squeeze on living standards since the Napoleonic Wars following the financial crisis. And young people have been the biggest losers in all of that. So you've got an economy where fundamentally people like me are locked out of asset inflation. So we are looking at incredibly vulnerable, incredibly precarious futures. You add on to that the climate crisis that we look at the fact that the government is not set to meet its own legally binding targets of achieving net zero by 2050. You look at the sense of, you know, you can buy anything you want. You've got all this consumer power, and yet you can't get the things that you really need, a dignified and secure life. And I want young people are turning away from capitalism. We're going to now watch a clip from Took Radio, which I'm only going to share because we want to mock it. Before I do, I want you to keep in mind a quote from that report before we watch Mike Graham making a fool of himself, quote, from the report by the IEA, Margaret Thatcher's favorite think tank. It is definitely wrong to think of millennial socialists as weird outliers who have nothing in common with normal members of their generation. Fox, roll clip. The remarkable document has come across our desk here at Took Radio, in which it says, as a survey done by the IEA, 67% of young Britons want a socialist economic system. I can't believe they even know what that is. Christian, how are you doing? I'm very well. Thank you. Nice to talk to you. Nice to talk to you. I'm very well as well. I mean, this sort of confirms my prejudices, I would say, about some of the kind of bedwetting, limp-wristed young people that we have in this country who seem to think that socialism is a good thing. I mean, these are all the same people that sang Jeremy Corbyn's name at Glastonbury, I'm assuming, you know, that's sort of the sort of slightly overprivileged middle classes who, despite the fact that they have benefited massively from their parents' own capitalism, they think that maybe they should try something else. Benefitted from their own parents' capitalism. Okay. I mean, I don't know where to start entirely with this one because you've kind of got a real yin and yang there of media performers. You've got Ash Saka, Articula, Enformed, Congenial, Big Smile, and then you've got Mike Graham, deeply uninformed, almost comically so, whose job appears to be just public ignorance. How is it possible that 70% of young people can be privileged and go to Glastonbury? I mean, choose your warrior, right? If Mike Graham is the best frontier that capitalism has to offer, then, you know, we might actually have a planet in 100 years. But you know, I think it makes total sense, right? And Ash did cover it really, really well. There is this huge fissure, right, between the story that people are told about what it means to live under capitalism, which is, you know, if you work hard, then, you know, you'll be okay, you'll have security, you'll have, you know, all these great things. There's a huge fissure between that and the life that people are actually experiencing, the life that people, you know, have in front of them, like reasonably have in front of them, which is that though, which is actually that often those who work the absolute hardest, the most hours, the most, you know, tiring and exhausting jobs are the ones who are the most precarious, the least well paid, and, you know, wages are stagnant across so many different sectors that people work in. And it really is down to that kind of collapse of the post-war contract, which, you know, was this kind of sort of compromise where, you know, okay, you maybe work more than you perhaps need to, and maybe you work a job that's kind of a bit of a bullshit job, and, you know, you're just sort of making money disproportionately for your boss, and you don't really get much diversity in terms of, like, who's going to politically represent you, and you sort of live in a colonial state, because let's get the straight, you know, the post-war social contract in the global north was funded and sustained by extraction in the south. But at least, you know, at least you get a pension, like, you get sick, pay when you're ill, you, you know, get a home that you can live in and that, you know, you're not going to be evicted out of, or you're not going to have, you know, your rent spiked, you know, randomly, you're not going to have to spend, you know, way more than half of your paycheck on rent for the rest of your life. You know, that contract, it didn't exist for everyone, even in the US and the UK. And I'd actually be really interested to hear what the opinions on capitalism are globally and not just in the US and the UK, because that will really tell us if something's really going to change. You know, that contract, it didn't exist for everyone, but now it's collapsing, even for those who expect it to have been the reality for them, right? University graduates, et cetera. And you then pair that kind of personal experience of the economy with things like the climate crisis, as Ash, you know, talked about, but also the handling of the COVID pandemic as well, the public health crisis. And it becomes clear to so many people that, you know, if this is what capitalism is, it's literally killing us. And, you know, if you think that millennials are radical, like you wait until you see what Gen Z have to say, because Gen Z, they're not only like radical in their thinking, but they're really organized. And they're actually a lot more effective, I think, than a lot of the sort of millennial movements were, you know, when you look at the BLM marches, for example, you know, they weren't making mealy-mouthed demands for, you know, diversity and inclusion, and, you know, a Black Prime Minister, they were saying, you know, economic justice and climate justice is racial justice. We want a total economic and ecological rehauling of our system. But I kind of want to say as well that, you know, as this is starting to happen and as particularly, we kind of saw a glimpse of it there in the talk radio segment, but especially as, you know, within neoliberal elites, this recognition is starting to happen, we can expect a real backlash. I think in many ways the cultural stuff is kind of a backlash in part to the power that has been gained and the gains that have been made by the anti-racist and the feminist movements over the past few years. It's that kind of technique of putting a lot of money into and resources into caricaturing and strawmaning and deflecting in order to deal with the fact that there is a threat of a real consciousness shift. So whilst it's really great to see this kind of stuff, I really don't want to think about what kind of, you know, media and cultural strategies that they are kind of plotting in order to try and crush this. But yeah, I mean, it's and this is also, you know, just to kind of end it to connect it back to that, the second story that we spoke about. This is where you really ask yourself, you know, what are the Labour Party doing? Like, these millions of young people who are kind of having these thoughts and who are sort of turning, like really questioning the system that they're living in, they're not going anywhere, right? You can't and you're not going to be able to continue to try and focus group them into the Labour Party. They will find ways of organizing and expressing political culture outside of the party. The Labour Party is going to become irrelevant in their lives. And if it was sensible, if it wanted to actually have a long term strategy for existing in the future, the Labour Party would harness that and, you know, marshal it into concrete systemic change and, you know, be part of that shift. But instead, you know, it's choosing to just completely divest and abdicate from that. And so in that context, including with the context of hemorrhaging Muslim voters, it's like, guys, like time is running out for you to turn this ship around. I'm going to do a Michael Walker, Dalia. And I'm going to sort of push back, even though I don't believe in it, sort of being contrarian. I suppose that the council argument from, from not even a supporter of Kistama, but the council argument would be from somebody within Labour, is that young people don't win general elections right now. And you're the argument you're making, and that may be true in 10, 15, 20 years, but it's not right at the moment. Sort of, how would you respond to that? I mean, I mean, that's clear what happened in the last general election, right? In 2019 Labour piled up votes amongst 18 to 35 year olds, fundamentally. It won amongst, I think, under 50s, but that wasn't still enough to actually form a government. So sort of how do you, how do you make sense of that? Does the left just say, okay, well, you know what, we prepare a politics for the 2030s, the 2040s, but we accept we're not going to be near, sort of parliamentary political power in the meantime, you sort of just give it up? Or is there sort of an alternative to that? I think it's fair to say that, you know, of course, just having young people on board isn't going to win elections, but how do you expect to win elections without young people on board? And also, I think that a key, when you look at the key difference as well, I think that part of the Labour Party's failure in the last election was that it didn't, it failed to galvanize enough, galvanize people who don't typically vote. And I think that understanding that just trying to kind of skim off the top of a couple of disillusioned Tory remainers, that is not really going to win you elections. What's going to win you elections is mobilizing your base, getting out people who aren't typically accounted for to vote, which is what happened in 2017. That is, it's not an easy pathway to power, because, you know, if you follow this kind of line, you're going to get a lot of backlash from the media. It's going to be very difficult. We all saw it. It's not easy, but at least it's not impossible. Whereas the, the track that we're having now, the track that Starmer is going on now, which is, you know, being ashamed of his voter base, offering nothing to young people, being salmophobic, that's impossible. You know, it's not difficult. It's impossible. Yeah, that's kind of why I think Labour will never embrace proportion representation, because the second they do, particularly with these sort of changing political demographics amongst the young, I mean, their coalition is just going to go every way. And it's, it's going to be a problem to them. And I don't think people talk about progressive alliance. I don't think they're honest about that. We have a super chat from Oliver Kant, £5. It's no surprise, then it's responding to what you said, Darlia, that we're going through a massive and send red scare right now. It's a clamp down to stop this trend. And Hayfield, with a fiber says, thank you, thank you. And thank you, Oliver, Caroline Duvier, tweets on the hashtag Tiskey sour coincidence that Javid wants to kill off all the young people when this study just came out showing young people prefer prefer socialism over capitalism. Think not, I mean, young people aren't going to necessarily die. But I think it's, it's absolutely, of course, some will, and you know, sort of compromise young people, etc. clearly a massive risk of, of, of really, really suffering here. But I think it's true to say that actually, in terms of electoral calculus, you know, for the Tories, what under 40s think isn't figuring. And you might think, well, you know, it's, it's, it's only a small part of the population. But that kind of matters if you're locked out from the entirety of the national political conversation. Darlia, give me a quick prediction about what you think the score is going to be tonight. Oh, my God, I have no idea what's going on. I want to say, who are they playing Denmark? That's right, Denmark, a Danish, Danish dynamite. I mean, don't hate me, but I feel like it would be a very English thing to beat Germany to nil, at least to Denmark, it just seems very typical. But you know, hopefully, hopefully everyone will be happy tonight. But I have no idea. Let me go for like, scraped by with a one nil. You know, just because look for me after being after being Germany, anything's a bonus for me. I didn't expect, I didn't expect us to win that one. So Denmark, okay, I think, I think we should win. I think, personally, I think we've got the best team remaining in the tournament, but I know some people disagree with that. Thank you everyone this evening for your super chats. If you want to support us directly, then go to navarramedia.com slash support the show we back on Friday at 7pm. So make sure to hit subscribe. Michael Walker, we're back on Monday. So even more reason to subscribe. You've been watching Teske Sauer on Navarramedia. Good night.